


Poppets, Puppets, Dummies, Golems

by sherlockedaspergirl



Category: Sherlock (TV)
Genre: Gen, Meta
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2014-03-05
Updated: 2014-03-05
Packaged: 2018-01-14 16:53:53
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 2
Words: 2,054
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/1273966
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/sherlockedaspergirl/pseuds/sherlockedaspergirl
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Two part meta mini-series about the many references to various kinds of puppets and dummies throughout Sherlock, and what they mean for the roles of the characters who represent the puppets and the puppetmaster.</p>
            </blockquote>





	1. Each Frame Tells a Story: Have a Gottle o' Geer, my Poppet

This is for Mid0nz’s [ Each Frame Tells a Story project ](http://mid0nz.tumblr.com/post/77174883122/im-starting-a-new-meta-series-called-each-frame-tells). I’m not sure if it fits that well into that project however, because though the frame is powerful, I am really analyzing two bits of dialogue from two different episodes in two different series, rather than what is visually in the frame. Also, there are three frames in this post. Whatever. I’m aspergirl, I do what I want. And I am starting with and coming back to this:

Ok, I know I showed you this image in my [ last meta ](http://sherlockedaspergirl.tumblr.com/post/77987704915/moriarty-as-two-faced-god) , as the moment that John is acting as Moriarty’s prophet. I am doing something slightly different now. This time I want to show you how John is Moriarty’s puppet , and why that matters, what it tells us about Moriarty’s _m.o._ Let’s look at this conversation again, shall we?

> JOHN: Evening. This is a turn-up, isn’t it, Sherlock?
> 
> SHERLOCK: John. What the hell …?
> 
> JOHN: Bet you never saw this coming. What … would you like me … to make him say … next? **Gottle o’ geer … gottle o’ geer … gottle o’ geer.**
> 
> SHERLOCK: Stop it.

When I saw this scene, I had no idea what gottle o’ geer was even referring to, and I thought Jim was being silly, “look at the silly nonsense babble I can make your best friend spout. I’m in control, ha ha”. But it was so weird sounding, I looked it up. It turns out gottle o’ geer is a joke about the difficulty of ventriloquism. Sounds in which your lips must close like b’s and f’s give away who is speaking, so when an inexperienced ventriloquist tries to make his dummy say “bottle of beer” it comes out “gottle o’ geer”. So Jim is saying more than “I am in control”. He is saying “I have made John Watson into my _puppet_ , my _dummy_.” Sherlock sure as hell doesn’t like it.

But, wait, we actually had a puppet already, earlier in this same episode:

Wasn’t the Golem a strange adversary? A golem is from Jewish legend, a clay figure brought to life by magic, an automaton. It is similar to a puppet, and it has a master controlling it. Look at him there, as if hanging from strings. The Golem also acts on Jim’s behalf. Jim is the puppetmaster. He pulls the strings from the center of his spiderweb. Tell me more about golems, oh internet:

> The accounts of his end are similarly conflicted, leading in turn to divergent understandings of his significance. The most popular and widely known version is that, having successfully defended the Jews, **the golem turned on his maker** **,** wreaking havoc in the ghetto, terrifying its inhabitants, and eventually attacking the synagogue he had been created to defend. Thereupon the rabbi destroyed the work of his hands, returning it to the primordial mud whence it came. In a manner befitting the creature’s birth, his destruction was accomplished (or perhaps not) by effacing the letter alef from the word emet (“truth”), leaving the word met (“dead”).
> 
> (source[ [x] ](http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/718/features/the-golem-universal-and-particular/)emphasis mine)

Older versions of the story do not have the golem turning on his maker, but I think that this is the image that most frequently comes to mind with golems.

So along comes season three and we have this:

 

> SHERLOCK: “Mary – lots of love, …”
> 
> JOHN: Yeah?
> 
> SHERLOCK: “… **poppet** … Oodles of love and heaps of good wishes from CAM. Wish your family could have seen this.”

Ok, I know what poppet means. It’s a somewhat patronizing term of endearment, and kinda annoying but fits right in with “big squishy cuddles” and “oodles of love”, right? It is very emphasized, however, with big pauses before and after and overly aggressive enunciation. Is there more here?

> pop·pet ˈpäpət/
> 
> noun: poppet; plural noun: poppets;
> 
>   1. historical - a small figure of a human being used in sorcery and witchcraft
> 
>   2. BRIT.informal an endearingly sweet or pretty child or young girl (often used as an affectionate form of address).
> 
> 

> 
> Origin: late Middle English: based on Latin pup(p)a ‘girl, doll.’ Compare with [ puppet ](https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE___US529US530&espv=210&es_sm=93&q=define+puppet&sa=X&ei=HgYRU7viNZKJogTP9IHwBQ&ved=0CCsQgCswAA).

Hm, a human figure, a doll. Witchcraft? So related to magic, kind of like a golem?…well ok then definition, I will compare with puppet.

> pup·pet ˈpəpət/
> 
> noun: puppet; plural noun: puppets
> 
>   1. a movable model of a person or animal that is used in entertainment and is typically moved either by strings controlled from above or by a hand inside it.
> 
>   2. a person, party, or state under the control of another person, group, or power. “he was little more than a puppet of his aides” pawn, tool, instrument, cat’s paw, creature, dupe;
> 
> 

> 
> Origin: mid 16th cent. (denoting a doll): later form of [ poppet ](https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&rlz=1C1GGGE___US529US530&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1291&bih=572&q=define+poppet&ei=ygYRU_yHCpXioASywIJA&ved=0CDUQgCswAA), generally having a more unfavorable connotation.

Ahh…so it appears that the origin of the word “puppet” is actually “poppet”. Hmm…

But, CAM does not actually try to control Mary as his puppet if you think about it. He tries to control other people _through_ her. But if she _is_ a puppet, then whose puppet is she? Who is our puppetmaster? Is CAM outright stating what he has on Mary in his telegram? I can tell everyone that you are under Jim’s control, that you are his puppet?

So Mr. and Mrs. psychopath are now Mr. and Mrs. dummy/puppet. Interestingly, although a dummy is, in fact a puppet, it also implies ignorance. John “I don’t understand” Watson is not just a puppet, he is a dummy, he is not privy to the puppetmaster’s plans. Whereas Mary seems to know exactly what’s going on, even if she isn’t in control of it.

Mary is Jim’s puppet, that means no way can we trust her! Get her away from them! Danger, Will Robinson! But, now it gets really interesting. Back to the original frame I am supposedly analyzing. John is Jim’s puppet, and in a vest of semtex, he is a danger. Now notice how _he first appears to be betraying Sherlock in this scene_. But in truth he is loyal, he is a puppet against his will, and when he sees the opportunity, he turns against Jim and tries to save Sherlock. And now we have seen Mary appear to betray Sherlock. And we know that a golem is known to turn on its master. I am not saying it is easy for me to do, but if these are the models for Jim’s puppets, maybe as dangerous as she is, we really can trust Mary.

 There is another person [talking about a puppet](http://stephisanerd.tumblr.com/post/77939143583/the-sherlock-stories-project-were-all-stories-in-the), but I don’t know how or if her analysis can be connected to this one. Puppets, clowns, facades, and magic tricks, things that aren’t what they seem - we have to look really closely at this show to find the clues to what is real.

There is a second chapter to this one, because I missed a really important dummy the first time around. Well, actually its the same dummy. You'll see.


	2. Dummy Knowledge

I am putting up a quick mini-meta, because the dummy discussion [here ](http://sherlockedaspergirl.tumblr.com/post/78180408804/each-frame-tells-a-story-have-a-gottle-o-geer-my)is not complete without this example, even though the puppetmaster is no longer Jim. This bit might not make sense if you haven’t read that one. I actually get to tie in dummies and prophecy/tragedy, which I didn’t expect to be able to do this soon, hooray!

> SHERLOCK: I want to know how good you are. Go on. Show me. The doctor’s wife must be a little bit bored by now.
> 
> (Mary shooting the coin and Sherlock’s reveal behind Mary rather than at the end of the hall)
> 
> SHERLOCK: May I see?
> 
> MARY:  **It’s a dummy.** I suppose it was a fairly obvious trick.
> 
> SHERLOCK: (holding the coin) And yet, over a distance of six feet, you failed to make a kill shot. Enough to hospitalise me; not enough to kill me. That wasn’t a miss. That was surgery. I’ll take the case.
> 
> MARY: What case?
> 
> SHERLOCK: Yours. Why didn’t you come to me in the first place?
> 
> MARY: Because John can’t ever know that I lied to him. It would break him and I would lose him forever – and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen. Please … understand. There is nothing in this world that I would not do to stop that happening.
> 
> SHERLOCK: Sorry. Not that obvious a trick.
> 
> (John’s reveal as the dummy)

See that!? See? He is literally a dummy, guys. I’m not just making this stuff up. Never doubt me again.

This scene, unlike Jim’s use of John as a dummy at the pool, is an ACD cannon reference, or rather, a blend of two separate cannon references. One is from “The Empty House”, wherein Sherlock has a dummy of himself at Baker Street to fool Moran, who would otherwise shoot him through the window. In the other, “The Mazarin Stone”, what the criminals mistake for a dummy is actually Holmes himself, who overhears their secrets.

In BBC cannon, however, the choice to have Sherlock use John as a dummy is pretty big. It is a trick of Jim’s and plays into Jim’s desire to make Sherlock into his own image. But John is not a dummy against his will in this case, he is a full participant cooperating with Sherlock, and gains knowledge from playing the dummy. This could have the power to bring John out of the dark, but we will see him ultimately reject this knowledge by throwing the A.G.R.A. drive into the fire. So after rejecting the knowledge he is given, John ends up in this situation:

> JOHN: **I don’t understand.**
> 
> MAGNUSSEN:  **You should have that on a T-shirt.**
> 
> JOHN: You just remember it all?
> 
> MAGNUSSEN:  **It’s all about knowledge. Everything** **is.** **Knowing is owning.**
> 
> JOHN: But if you just know it, then you don’t have proof.
> 
> MAGNUSSEN: Proof? What would I need proof for? I’m in news, you moron. I don’t have to prove it – I just have to print it. Speaking of news, you’ll both be heavily featured tomorrow – trying to sell state secrets to me. Let’s go outside. They’ll be here shortly. Can’t wait to see you arrested.
> 
> JOHN: Sherlock, do we have a plan? … Sherlock.
> 
> MAGNUSSEN: They’re taking their time, aren’t they?
> 
> JOHN: **I still don’t understand.**
> 
> MAGNUSSEN:  **And there’s the back of the T-shirt.**

If I may return to Heraclitus, who I referenced in my [analysis on prophecy](http://sherlockedaspergirl.tumblr.com/post/77864244179/moriarty-as-prophet)“forever do men prove to be uncomprehending, both before they hear and once they have heard it”. This is how tragedy works. Men are uncomprehending of knowledge that is given to them, because it is too terrible to comprehend. 

But what John does by making this move is actually the  _complete opposite_ of the decision that a tragic hero would make. Gaining knowledge seems like the safer move. But Oedipus is undone by knowing the prophecy. All prophecies are self-fulfilling, and all knowledge has a price. He is transcending tragedy through this choice. Who makes a choice like this? I couldn’t do it, could you? I may have yelled at my screen when he did it. Could Sherlock ever choose not to know? Didn’t he tell us “I hate not knowing”? Could Pandora resist opening the box that lets all of the evil into the world? John can and he does.

And though it looks like a phenomenally stupid decision, it is actually extremely wise and incredibly noble. C.A.M. tells us Knowing is owning. He is speaking of the exact same knowledge that John threw in the fire. John chose not to own Mary. He left open the possibility of loving her. Because, remember Vicky? “Some secrets have to stay secret.” And by renouncing knowledge, and choosing to remain a dummy on his own terms, he is the opposite of C.A.M. Human beings, and particularly tragic heroes, do everything in their power to fight against limits placed on them, to know as much as they can, so that they might control as much as possible. But there is no life outside of limits. And an outcome that you think you are controlling is usually controlling you, that is tragic fate. John’s renunciation of knowledge is an extraordinary act of bravery, and now, I don’t know what will happen to him, because as he is not following the pattern of greek tragedy. And not knowing is rather wonderful, isn’t it?


End file.
